On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 15:25 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
> > At that point, using OpenLDAP or CentOS-DS or Fedora-DS is more or less
> > a matter of implementation details and utility. None of them are better
> > than the other for most purposes and even things like the consoles in
> > Fedora-DS aren't going to make it any easier for you to use LDAP if you
> > don't understand how it works. In short, there really aren't decent
> > shortcuts to using LDAP if you don't care to actually understand how and
> > why it works.
>> I think the standards bodies have failed us badly on this front. People
> don't want to understand LDAP any more than they want to understand the
> bits in a TCP packet header. They just want systems to interoperate.
----
I suppose I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that
some of the LDAP servers are not compliant with RFC's for LDAP? Which
ones? how?
As for people not wanting to understand LDAP, that's their choice and I
wish them luck. If you want a pre-configured LDAP that's always the same
for every installation, check out Active Directory. It doesn't get any
easier to implement LDAP on Active Directory if you don't understand it.
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.